lemme get this straight
May. 12th, 2005 10:05 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
burnunitI've heard a lot of rhetoric how the soldiers are in Iraq so we don't have to deal with terrorists back home. That line got into a lot of GOP campaign ads, fighting the terrorists overseas so we don't have to face them at home. So, help me understand this better:
1) stretch out and strain our troops in a foreign land.
2) underfund our local police and protection agencies.
3) leave refineries, chemical and nuclear plants underprotected.
Since 9/11 the only terrorist attacks on our soil have been domestic ones (the anthrax guy(guys?) was almost certainly homegrown). Domestic terrorism threats (clinic bombings, doctor and judiciary assassination, militia uprising) remain the form increasingly likely to happen on our soil. Nothing has happened here, but does anybody feel safer?
Finally, let me ask this: if it's acknowledged that the bulk of insurgents in Iraq are foreign-led cells, and that it's essentially proven that al Qaeda's presence in Iraq was nil before they came in after our invasion, and it's acknowledged that terrorists harm both military and civilian targets... did we send our troops from Afghanistan to Iraq in order to bait terrorists into accumulating in Iraq so they can't attack America? There already were terrorists in Afghanistan. More were likely to file in as a war stretched out there. Were we disinclined to fight them there? Or did we want to expose Iraqi civilians to daily attacks too? Or did we really want to turn our sons and daughters into bait? What? Our men and women in uniform are bait?
My cousin's wife (currently on maternity leave from the US Army) is not fucking bait!
1) stretch out and strain our troops in a foreign land.
2) underfund our local police and protection agencies.
3) leave refineries, chemical and nuclear plants underprotected.
Since 9/11 the only terrorist attacks on our soil have been domestic ones (the anthrax guy(guys?) was almost certainly homegrown). Domestic terrorism threats (clinic bombings, doctor and judiciary assassination, militia uprising) remain the form increasingly likely to happen on our soil. Nothing has happened here, but does anybody feel safer?
Finally, let me ask this: if it's acknowledged that the bulk of insurgents in Iraq are foreign-led cells, and that it's essentially proven that al Qaeda's presence in Iraq was nil before they came in after our invasion, and it's acknowledged that terrorists harm both military and civilian targets... did we send our troops from Afghanistan to Iraq in order to bait terrorists into accumulating in Iraq so they can't attack America? There already were terrorists in Afghanistan. More were likely to file in as a war stretched out there. Were we disinclined to fight them there? Or did we want to expose Iraqi civilians to daily attacks too? Or did we really want to turn our sons and daughters into bait? What? Our men and women in uniform are bait?
My cousin's wife (currently on maternity leave from the US Army) is not fucking bait!